{"id":"alj-G905176-2025-01-14","awcc_number":"G905176","decision_date":"2025-01-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Twanna Carter","employer_name":"Ar Department Of Community Correction","title":"CARTER VS. AR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION AWCC# G905176 January 14, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CARTER_TWANNA_G905176_20250114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CARTER_TWANNA_G905176_20250114.pdf","text_length":12116,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G905176 \n \nTWANNA CARTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nAR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION,  \nEMPLOYER                RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA                       RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 14 JANUARY 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 16 October 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \n \nArkansas Insurance Department, Public Employee Claims Division, Mr. Robert \nMontgomery, appeared for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 16 October 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nThe parties participated in a prehearing telephone conference on 16 July 2024. A \nPrehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1, \nwas entered on 17 July 2024.  \nThat Order set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  An employee/employer/TPA relationship existed at all relevant times, including 1  \n     August 2019, when the claimant suffered an accepted compensable injury to her \n     right lower extremity. Some benefits were provided accordingly. \n \n3.  The claimant’s average weekly wage at the time relevant to this claim was \n$636.52 per week, which would entitle her to Temporary Total Disability (TTD) \nbenefits in the amount of $424 per week and Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) \nbenefits in the amount of $318 per week. \n \nThe Order stated the following ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1. Whether the claim for additional benefits is barred by the statute of limitations. \n\nT. CARTER- G905176 \n2 \n \n \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional benefits, including future medical \ntreatment, reimbursement for past medical treatment, and indemnity benefits. \n \nAll other ISSUES are reserved. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their prehearing questionnaire \nresponses, were incorporated into the Prehearing Order. The claimant contends, generally, \nthat she was not appropriately compensated and that she is entitled to additional medical \nand indemnity benefits. The respondents, however, contend that all appropriate benefits \nhave been paid. They further contend that the last compensation provided to compensation \nwas in the form of treatment from Campbell Clinic, P.C., on 5 May 2021. Payment for that \ntreatment was completed on 29 March 2022. The respondents subsequently filed a Form \nAR-4 with the Commission on 22 March 2023. They contend that this claim for additional \nbenefits is barred by the statute of limitations under A.C.A. § 11-9-702(b)(1). \n The claimant was the only WITNESS. \nThe EVIDENCE considered in this claim consisted of the hearing testimony along with \nthe following EXHIBITS: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the Prehearing Order), Respondents’ \nExhibit No 1 (an index page and four pages of medical reports), Respondents’ Exhibit No 2 \n(one index page and ten pages of non-medical records), and Respondents’ Exhibit No 3 (one \nindex page and an 18-page functional capacity evaluation report). \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Having reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the \nwitness, observing her demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw under ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. The previously-noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n \n\nT. CARTER- G905176 \n3 \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to any additional benefits. \n \n4.   In light of Finding/Conclusion No 3, the statute of limitations issue is moot \nand will not be addressed. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \nClaimant Twanna Carter \n The claimant testified she injured her leg on 1 August 2019 while she was \nparticipating in some training on subduing noncompliant inmates. Her injury was accepted \nby the respondents as compensable, and she began receiving medical and indemnity \nbenefits accordingly. She ultimately underwent surgical repair for her ACL and MCL \ninjuries. Afterwards, she received a permanent impairment rating; and that rating was \npaid by the respondents. The claimant disagrees with the opinions offered around her \nrelease from care and believes that she is entitled to ongoing treatment for pain and other \nunspecific benefits. She has not returned to work since sustaining her injury. \n On cross examination, the claimant acknowledged that her treatment included care \nfrom Dr. Frederick Azar at the Campbell Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee. She was also seen \nby Dr. Carlos Roman, who placed her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on 8 March \n2021. On 23 March 2021, she underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) that found \nher efforts to be unreliable. The claimant disagreed with those findings and stated that she \ndid the best that she could do in the testing. \n According to her testimony, the claimant was aware that Dr. Roman was a pain \nspecialist at the time that she saw him in March of 2021. She acknowledged that his final \nreport stated that, “There are no further medications required.”  \nThe claimant testified that she last saw Dr. Azar in May of 2021 and acknowledged \nreceiving a nine percent (9%) impairment rating to her lower extremity in May of 2021. She \n\nT. CARTER- G905176 \n4 \n \nfurther acknowledged the receipt of $5,144.94 as compensation for that rating. The check \nfor that payment was dated 10 August 2021. \nMedical and Documentary Evidence \n The medical reports indicate that the claimant saw Dr. Roman on 8 March 2021. He \nplaced her at MMI on that date, noting that there were “no further injections, procedures, \nor medications required.” The claimant’s last visit with Dr. Azar was on 5 May 2021, when \nhe agreed that she was at MMI. He concluded, “I am going to release her from my care at \nthis time and render an impairment based on the AMA guides.” He calculated a nine \npercent (9%) impairment to the lower extremity, which translated to a four percent (4%) \nimpairment to the whole person. [Resp. Ex. No 1.] \n The respondents introduced several non-medical records, including a Form AR-N \ndated 2 August 2019, and payments records that are consistent with the claimant’s \ntestimony. The final date of service for medical treatment is represented as 5 May 2021 at \nCampbell Clinic (Dr. Azar’s practice). The payment history print-out for the claimant’s \nimpairment rating payment shows a date of 10 August 2021. [Resp. Ex. No 2.] \n A functional capacity evaluation report found that the claimant put forth an \nunreliable effort during her 23 March 2021 evaluation. Only 20 of 53 consistency measures \nwere within expected limits. [Resp. Ex. No 3.] \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). \nA claimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \n\nT. CARTER- G905176 \n5 \n \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \n The claimant believes that she is entitled to additional medical benefits beyond the \ntreatment already provided. Employers must promptly provide medical services which are \nreasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injuries. A.C.A. § 11-9-508(a). \nHowever, injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. \nApp. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment is a fact question for the Commission, and the resolution of this issue depends \nupon the sufficiency of the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 \nS.W.2d 790 (1996). \n The testimony suggested that the claimant believes that her complaints of pain and \ndifficulties have not been properly addressed. The respondents, however, presented \nevidence, by way of medical reports, from two providers that agreed that the claimant was \nat MMI in 2021. The Commission may accept or reject a medical opinion and determine its \nprobative value. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). I \nfind the reports and opinions of Drs. Azar and Roman to be credible. A permanent \nimpairment rating was determined by one of her providers, and the claimant acknowledged \nthat she received appropriate benefits consistent with that rating.   \n\nT. CARTER- G905176 \n6 \n \nA claimant may be entitled to additional treatment even after her healing period is \nended, if that treatment is geared towards management of a compensable injury. Patchell, \nsupra. The claimant testified that she has seen other providers for pain since her release \nfrom care; but she did not introduce any records to suggest a causal connection between her \ninjury and her more recent treatment(s). I do not find that the claimant met her burden of \nproving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment. \n The claimant also testified about the difficulties she has faced since her injury and \nnot returning to work. She claims that she remains unable to work due to her injury. \nTemporary total disability (TTD) is that period within the healing period in which the \nemployee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 \nArk. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). \"Healing period\" means \"that period for healing of an \ninjury resulting from an accident.\" A.C.A. § 11-9-102(12). The healing period continues until \nthe employee is as far restored as the permanent character of her injury will permit, and if \nthe underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and nothing further in \nthe way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing period has ended. Harvest \nFoods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996). The determination of when \nthe healing period has ended is a question of fact for the Commission. Carroll Gen. Hosp. v. \nGreen, 54 Ark. App. 102, 923 S.W.2d 878 (1996). \n Based on the evidence in the record, I do not find that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she entered a new healing period that may entitle her to \nadditional TTD benefits. Temporary total disability benefits cannot be awarded after \nthe healing period has ended. Elk Roofing Co. v. Pinson, 22 Ark. App. 191, 737 S.W.2d 661 \n(1987). The claimant testified generally that she still experiences pain. Persistent pain, \n\nT. CARTER- G905176 \n7 \n \nhowever, does not extend a claimant's healing period, provided that the underlying \ncondition has stabilized. Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 \n(1982). The medical evidence credibly establishes that the claimant’s condition stabilized in \n2021 when Drs. Azar and Roman released her from care at MMI. \n Having found that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof on her request for \nadditional benefits of any type, the issue of whether the statute of limitations has run is \nmoot. \nV.  CONCLUSION \n Because the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof on any claim for additional \nbenefits, this claim is DENIED and DISIMSSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G905176 TWANNA CARTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 14 JANUARY 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative La...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:13.614Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G905176-2025-01-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CARTER_TWANNA_G905176_20250114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}